LAL SARAF Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by Shree Lal Saraf is directed against an order dated 15-3-1978 passed in trial No. 1134 of 1978 by which Shri Z. Hassan, Judicial Magistrate, Jhenjharpur has refused to supply to him certified copies of certain documents and part of the order sheet of the aforesaid case.

(2.) It seems that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for violating the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period 15-1-1969 to 15-3-1969. This complaint was filed on 28-11-1977 and cognizance has been taken of the offence dated 8-12-77. Thereafter it is stated that the petitioner has been advised that the case cannot proceed against him as the complaint relates to a violation of a period which is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 468 (2)(b) of Cri. P. C. The petitioner therefore applied in the court of the learned magistrate for the certified copies of the complaint petition dated 28-11-1977 as also of the order passed in case No. T. Rule 1134 of 1978 on 8-12-1977. He offerred to pay the requisite stamps for the receipt of the copies. By the impugned order the learned magistrate has refused to supply the certified copies on the ground that the petitioner has not yet appeared in his court. The order seems to be in direct conflict with the provision of law as engrafted in Section 363 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (5) of Section 363 reads thus: (5) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) any person affected by a judgment or order passed by a Criminal Court shall on an application made in this behalf and on payment of the prescribed charges, be given a copy judgment or order or of any deposition or other part of the record: Provided that the Court, may if it thinks fit for some special reason, give it to him free of cost. Sub-section (2) of Section 3C3 deals with supply of certified copies of judgments to an accused and the proviso appended to it provides that in case of sentence of death such certified copy shall be given immediately free of cost whether applied for or not. It seems obvious that when any person is affected by a judgment or order passed by a criminal I court then on an application made in this behalf and on payment of prescribed charges a copy if the order, deposition or any other part of the record has to be given them. There is nothing' therein to show that before a person can obtain such copy he must appear in court. On the statement of the petitioner he has been affected by the order dated 8-12-1977 passed in trial is No. 1134 of 1978. There is no counter-affidavit challenging this statement. In that view the learned magistrate was not justified in refusing him to supply copy of that order and other parts of the record which includes complaint petition on which cognizance has been taken.

(3.) On behalf of the State it has been urged that there is some circular of this Court which provides that such copies should not be given unless the person concerned has appeared in court. Apart from the fact that no such circular has been produced before me I am unable to see how such circular, if there be, one like it, can be in violation of the ( specific provision of the Cr.P.C.